Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kuzian v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

United States District Court, Third Circuit

December 30, 2013

MARIUSZ KUZIAN, JAMES G. BROWN, DEBRA A. THOMAS-BROWN, and IRMA LEDERER, Plaintiffs,
v.
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant.

BRUCE HELLER NAGEL, DIANE E. SAMMONS, NAGEL RICE, LLP, ROSELAND, NJ, JOHN N. POULOS, JOSEPH LOPICCOLO, POULOS LOPICCOLO PC, OCEAN, NJ, On behalf of plaintiffs.

JEFFREY M. GARROD ORLOFF, LOWENBACH, STIFELMAN & SIEGEL, P.A., ROSELAND, NJ, C. BRANDON WISOFF, THOMAS B. MAYHEW FARELLA BRAUN MARTEL LLP, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, On behalf of defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge.

This matter having come before the Court on the motion of defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc. ("Electrolux") for reconsideration, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)[1], of the Court's denial of its motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims regarding defective ice makers in their Electrolux refrigerators; and

Defendant arguing that the Court erred when it did not find that the New Jersey plaintiffs' fraud and implied warranty claims were subsumed by the New Jersey Products Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1, et seq., because those claims allege a defective product that has caused damage to other property beyond the refrigerator itself - namely, to the walls, floors, and food inside - and instead found those damages to be consequential, economic losses not subsumed by the NJPLA; and

Defendant also arguing that if the Court declines to reconsider its decision, the Court should permit defendant to pursue an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1292(b); and

The Court recognizing that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration "is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence, " Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros , 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999), and that a judgment may be altered or amended only if the party seeking reconsideration shows: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice, id.; and

The Court further recognizing that the motion may not be used to re-litigate old matters or argue new matters that could have been raised before the original decision was reached, P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Cendant Corp. , 161 F.Supp.2d 349, 352 (D.N.J. 2001), and mere disagreement with the Court will not suffice to show that the Court overlooked relevant facts or controlling law, United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp. , 88 F.Supp.2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999); and

The Court finding after review of the submissions that it should re-examine the issue of whether plaintiffs' claims concerning the damages caused by the allegedly faulty ice makers to property other than the product itself, e.g., food, floors and walls are consequential, economic losses, but rather sound in tort and are subsumed by the NJPLA;

Accordingly,

IT IS on this 27th day of December, 2013

ORDERED that defendant's motion for reconsideration [42] is GRANTED to the extent that the Court will hear re-argument on the issues raised in defendant's motion[2]; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall appear before this Court on Monday, February 3, 2014 at 2:00pm in Courtroom 3A or on such other date convenient to the Court and parties.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.